television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
I got a simple system. Those earning over 100,000 E pay no tax
those under pay 42 on all income.
Simple and equitable.
- simplifying the system should result in a more understandable system. And a more understandable system should be more equitable.
Certainly, with a consumption tax, low income earners would be encouraged to save and invest their income, thereby creating and building wealth.
Could you expand on what kind of ways HNW people add to the economy, other than in proportion to their income?very high net worth people add to the economy in other ways.
Could you expand on what kind of ways HNW people add to the economy, other than in proportion to their income?
Have a look at the big extension in Trinity College and check up on who gives money to the national art gallery and you will see what one HMW person gives. On a more mundane level rich people spend more money than poor people in the consumer economy. I would also suggest that once someone has paid over €400'000 in income tax they have paid their fair share.
Trust me, this does not apply to me (and probably never will), it’s just an observation.
Half of what Martin Naughton earns in a year does a lot more for the national gallery than half of what you or I earn. Many very rich people give money and no one ever hears about it.I specifically mentioned 'proportion' in my query. Many alumni donate to Trinity and many people donate to the national gallery, including a large team of volunteer guides.
I suspect that many of the large high-profile donations to universities have been about buying of honorary doctorates. There is no evidence that HNW donate a higher proportion of their income than others, and therefore therefore this is no justification for tax breaks.
I think that charities would like to see the HNW guy coming before Joe Bloggs (no matter how well intentioned).To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.
This is condescending balderdash. For Reynolds statement to carry any weight, he would have to convince people that
a) The government can and will be aware of all the possible ramifications of all the amendments, exemptions, credits and various other "complications" designed to provide more equity to the tax system.
b) That intervening in this manner will not cause inequity or negatively impact the economy (e.g. tax breaks for one industry leading to rampant overproduction to the detriment of other industries)
c) That such complications can be availed of easily by those who need them most. Who for example is more likely to apply for and avail of the plethora of extra tax credits available - low or high bracket income earners?
Its very easy to bandy about terms like "condescending balderdash" in relation to Reynolds' statement. However unless and until you are in a position to cite at least four or five concrete suggestions of ways in which they tax system can be simplified without sacrificing equity and fairness, your criticism may equally not be taken seriously.
1. Flat rate of taxation for everyone - fair because everyone pays the same percentage, compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer.
OR
2. Lump sum rate of taxation for everyone - we are all equal citizens, so why not have everyone pay exactly the same amount of tax every year. The ultimate fair tax.
OR
3. Abolish income tax and increase the rate of VAT. Fair tax, because everyone pays in proportion to the disposable income they spend.
OR
4. Refundable tax credit system to replace both taxation and welfare. Everyone is entitled to a certain minimum income. If the earn less, they get a fully refundable tax credit for the difference (this is actual cash paid to them for those not familiar with RTCs). If they earn more, they pay a flat rate percentage on all income above this limit.
Hard to see how any of the first 3 could be regarded as inherently fair, or at least fairer than the above system.
ps I would be interested in how precisely you reckon that a Flat rate of taxation would mean that "compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer"?
Its obvious - everybody knows exactly how much tax they have to pay. Dont need an accountant, dont need to do complex calculations, very difficult to make a mistake, cant be misinterpreted. How easy can you get?
Given that they are proportionate and non-discriminating, can you explain how they are not fair? Can you also explain how the current system is fairer? I've asked loads of times over the years, but never received any explanation as to why are current regressive discriminatory tax system is fair?
The tax system would be simpler if
- tax relief on medical expenses was scrapped.
- tax credits for the blind/elderly/incapacitated/widowed parents following bereavement were scrapped
- tax bands were abolished
- income tax exemptions for low earners was abolished
- VAT applied to all items including food and basic necessities
- CGT applied to gains on principal private residences.
Would these steps be deemed equitable?
Indeed it is. But I don't see any relevance of this in terms of your proposal for a non-proportional tax break for the super-wealthy.Half of what Martin Naughton earns in a year does a lot more for the national gallery than half of what you or I earn.
As do many not-so-rich people.Many very rich people give money and no one ever hears about it.
Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.By the way, that quote is what communism is based on.
I don't like it as it suggests that a drug addict who "needs" €500 a day should get more than someone who studied hard and works hard but doesn't need much to stay fed and warm.
Look up your quote in google. First link:Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.Indeed it is. But I don't see any relevance of this in terms of your proposal for a non-proportional tax break for the super-wealthy.
I was responding to your insinuation that very rich people donate for ego or self-gratification.As do many not-so-rich people.
That was very interesting (I didn’t watch the cartoon, it was before my time J) but what’s your point? I pointed out that the phrase you used in inextricable associated with Carl Marx and communism.Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.
It was merely an extreme case used to illustrate the innate flaw in the philosophy your espoused.It suggests absolutely nothing about what a drug addict needs, with or without the inverted quotes. Your interpretation says more about you than about communism.
Quite the opposite! I'm no green loony leftie but by God-we live on a windswept, wave battered, rained on rock in the North Atlantic! We should be developing these assets NOW. Wind, wave, tidal and traditional hydro renewables should be prioritised. The nuclear option must be looked at to cover gaps in the bad weather (increasingly rare, lol). The entire rail network should be electrified and local public transport massively enhanced with bold moves to take back roadspace from the private car.One thing that hasn't been covered: energy costs. What can we do to improve efficiency or encourage alternative energy sources, or is this out of our hands?
The government should carefully evaluate ho much we are selling oil exploration rights for. Norway has a high standard of living due in no small part to OWNING Statoil 100%. We do not know how large our oil reserves are (if we have any) but we should be prepared to make the most of them if they materialise.
Yet again, you are failing to produce any substantiation for your proposal for a non-proportional tax. There is no evidence that HNW donate a high percentage of their salary. Indeed, the figures released by Revenue in the last 12 months showed that (iirc) the average percentage of tax paid by those with income over €1million was in the region of 11%. The many tax breaks kindly provided by McCreevy and Cowan pay nothing near their fair share of tax at present, and yet you propose another break? Give us a break, will ya?There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I was responding to your insinuation that very rich people donate for ego or self-gratification.
That was very interesting (I didn’t watch the cartoon, it was before my time J) but what’s your point? I pointed out that the phrase you used in inextricable associated with Carl Marx and communism.
It was merely an extreme case used to illustrate the innate flaw in the philosophy your espoused.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?